Mavric

At best

OT Mark Kallenberger Who voted for: Iowa GM_Tood, Mavric, seaofred92, L.husker713, Jags04, amhynes89, bisonwiches,Roger Dorn, Decked, Dr. Strangelove, Warrior10, AZRaiderH8r, Huskr25, Haspula,Touchdown Tommie, Lakehusker, BigRedBuster, Huskers44, Husker2019

Who voted for: Iowa GM_Tood, Mavric, seaofred92, L.husker713, Jags04, amhynes89, bisonwiches,Roger Dorn, Decked, Dr. Strangelove, Warrior10, AZRaiderH8r, Huskr25, Haspula,Touchdown Tommie, Lakehusker, BigRedBuster, Huskers44, Husker2019

OK ... I guess I'll ask here then. Where did you see that time? Just curious. It's posted on 247, beginning of March at a Nike camp he posted the 4.66 time, which is on his HUDL Yeah, 4.66 which is not 4.49. His 247 profile says 4.49 OK. That's what I was wondering. I don't trust numbers listed there. Others can believe what they want but those are prone to just be what somebody said they ran. Since only a handful of WRs at the NFL Combine ran faster than that, I'm skeptical.

OK ... I guess I'll ask here then. Where did you see that time? Just curious. It's posted on 247, beginning of March at a Nike camp he posted the 4.66 time, which is on his HUDL Yeah, 4.66 which is not 4.49.

OK ... I guess I'll ask here then. Where did you see that time? Just curious.

Where do you see that?

I usually get them initially off the 247 profile then compare what their Hudl profile says. Generally I go off the Hudl profile - not sure if that's right or not. But on his Hudl profile he now has Nike verified numbers of 5-10 and 144 lbs. 144 is pretty small, I agree. But an electronic 4.66 is actually pretty good for high school. That would still be faster than several of the receivers at the NFL combine this year. Not exactly blazing fast but not slow. The reports of high schoolers running 4.4s are at best hand-held and may be a bit exaggerated at that. That's why I don't put a 40 time in their profile unless its a verified time from a camp.

Visiting for the Spring Game

247

Yes and no. We apparently weren't as bad as it seemed - though really it was only a couple units that seemed poor. But that's part of the point - some of the units are more affected by scheme than others. And it's not like he had a lot of work to do. By the same ratings, we were #8 in the country the year before. So we got noticeably worse to be #28. Not that he had total control over that either: Field Goal Efficiency - Improved from #91 to #20 - I give Reed some credit as it does sound like he worked on some mechanical issues. But it was also going from a true Freshman kicker to a sophomore. Punt Return Efficiency - Went from #1 to #50 - Losing DPE didn't help but we simply didn't have many opportunities to return punts, even if DPE was back there. Some of that is our opponents scheme but it didn't seem like we were giving Westy (and whoever else)much of a chance. Kick Return Efficiency - Went from #20 to #86 - Probably the one most directly affected by scheme and we got a lot worse. Punt Efficiency - Improved from #66 to #29 - Probably the least affected by scheme and mostly to do with how well your punter is doing - we had the best punter in the conference. Kick Efficiency - Improved from #99 to #78 - Small improvement, probably split about evenly between scheme and skill of the kicker So in what I would argue is the areas most affected by scheme we got a lot worse and in the area least affected by scheme we got a lot better. I don't think that's a ringing endorsement. He may have done some work to improve Brown and, to a lesser extent, Foltz but that's harder to know for sure.

They have seven guys who average at least 20 minutes per game. One of them is 6-10, another is 6-9 then one 6-7 guy and two that are 6-6. The 6-10 guy averages 12 points, 7.4 rebounds and almost three blocks so I'd say that's pretty dominant, for sure on the defensive end. The 6-9 guy averages almost two blocks. Plus their wing guys are crazy athletic so that helps make up for being a little shorter.